Leaderboard

I think you're looking for guidance on plan-to-plan transfers. See Treas. Reg. 1.457-10. Non-governmental 457(b) plans can't make rollover distributions. Code Section 402(c)(4), (8).

That is correct. Here is a slide from Derrin and Ilene's presentation the other day:

Just my opinion: I suggest NO ONE answer this question on this Board. If the sponsor is upset about being charged a fee, the first question is "what does the service agreement say?". Charging a small fee is generally considered reasonable (i'm not defining "small"), assuming permitted by the service agreement. The corollary issue might be the amount of the requested fee. If so, the sponsor might wish to "take a survey" by calling a few TPA's (or the new TPA can do so) to ask about this fee/process in general, just for a market-based comparison. Lastly, the sponsor might find the fee is negotiable. Suggest an alternative amount?

We don't usually charge, but I've found that clients rarely keep, or know where, anything is we send them. If it gets ridiculous, then yes, we charge. But your client should have everything without going to the TPA. Next time maybe they will save everything. They are definitely within their rights to reasonable charge, especially since the plan is no longer with them.

I don't see where anybody is talking -11g in this thread. That just confuses things. The fact is that the permitted disparity safe harbors are only available to structures that satisfy the permitted disparity safe harbors in connection with a written formula. This thread has been talking about "a cross tested" plan, which everybody assumes mean everybody in their own group and that there is no formula of any kind and that there is no need for an -11g amendment of any kind. To confirm that the entire industry thinks it works this way, check with whoever does your testing software to see whether their 401a4 module has an option to use anything other than 100% of the taxable wage base as the integration level when testing on contributions. Further, test a simple case with two participants, one with comp in excess of the SSWB and an HCE, the other with comp less than the SSWB and an NHCE. Run it with "everybody in their own group". Allocate an amount that is consistent with a safe harbor formula using something lower than 100% of the SSWB as the integration level. Run the a4 test. Try to make it pass. Or you could just read the a4 regs again and find that when computing contribution rates the use of 100% of the SSWB is required when imputing permitted disparity.

Hi Larry - The argument I'm making is based on the fact that the plan itself doesn't have a formula for allocating contributions. The safe harbors under 1.401(a)(4)-2(b)(2) reference the plan allocating contributions under an "allocation formula" that's uniform (with the disclaimer in subparagraph (ii) that permitted disparity is okay). But in the case above, the plan doesn't allocate on a formula. Each participant is assigned a single contribution amount (that just happens to mimic an integrated formula). So that's the language/technicality I get hung up on. The plan is allocating based on a list of individual names and amounts directed by the Administrator, rather than a formula (which makes it feel less "safe" of a harbor in my mind). Honestly, I'm not going for anything beyond a semantics argument, I suppose. (p.s. Are you guys still getting Pizzeria Uno at the Relius meetings?)

If one is in an integration optimizing mood, this might be fun to play with: https://benefitslink.com/cgi-bin/inte-greater/ I wrote it around 1992, using a nifty boxed Turbo Pascal programming kit I found in the clearance section at Office Depot. Businesses had stopped writing their own software programs for their Radio Shack computers and IBM PCs. I had fun with the programming and wrote the "Inte-Greater." Later on, I decided to see if I'd enjoy making something called a "web site" when the World Wide Web thingie got big in 1995 ?